From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleLadakh is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 26, 2007.
Article milestones
June 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 9, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 26, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 14, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
WikiProject India / Jammu and Kashmir / Geography (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (marked as High-importance).
Note icon
This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.

Minor correction[edit]

I've changed references to Sinkiang in China, to Xinjiang. China changed the English transliteration itself on switching to it's own Pin Yin transliteration system of Chinese script to Latin script. Beefy_SAFC 18.37:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2019[edit]

Ladakh is a union territory of India it's no more a state please consider changing this information. (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not done. It will be one only when the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill comes into force. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


Please comment and give opinion regarding upcoming big change at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Kashmir pages.-Nizil (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Ladakh now a UT[edit]

I think we now should make Ladakh be an official UT since it has now been officially separated from J&K by the govt. C1MM (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I will change this once I have seen that publication of an appointed day in the official gazette Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

gazette for 370 repeal (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2019[edit]

Remove proposed as Ladakh is now a union territory Wqtr (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The union territory of Ladakh will be formed on an appointed day to be notified in the official gazette of India. Until then, it remains a region in current State of Jammu and Kashmir. I will make the necessary changes on the appointed day once it is reached. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Not done - As per the reasons cited above. Maranello10 (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

INB discussion[edit]

Please see the discussion at the India wikiproject noticeboard aiming to craft standardised neutral ledes for some top-level Kashmir-related article, including possibly this one. Abecedare (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Very vague terminology used ‘recently’[edit]

The article says... “Until recently, Ladakh was a division of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.” This is a subjective terminology as recently can be different in different people’s perception and therefore not factual. Pediasher (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The Dogra connection[edit]

I removed a comment that referred to "occupation" by Dogras. That is terrible POV.

The facts are something like this. When Tibet laid a siege to Ladakh back in the 17th century, Ladakh sought help from Kashmir. In return it became a tributary to Kashmir (as a province of Mughal Empire). This tributary relationship then got transferred to Durranis and later Sikhs.

But it appears that Ladakh didn't take the Sikh suzerainty seriously and was defaulting on its tribute. That eventually brought Zorawar Singh to Ladakh. Singh came to make sure that the tribute was paid, but, after Ladakh rebelled with the help of Baltistan, he came a second time and annexed Ladakh and also conquered Baltistan. The conquest of Baltistan then had fringe benefits, viz., that Gigit, Hunza and Nagar voluntarily became tributaries of the Sikh Empire. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note consensus wording for an RfC[edit]

@Gotitbro, Vanamonde93, DeluxeVegan, Titodutta, Uanfala, Kautilya3, Johnuniq, Doug Weller, Lingzhi2, Moonraker, Saqib, RegentsPark, and Abecedare: Please note the tentative consensus wording for an RfC here for the phrasing of the lead sentences all sub-regions of the disputed Kashmir region. I have changed it to the consensus wording (see here and here), but I am on vacation, so I hope, others will keep an eye on these pages. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please also note that what goes for Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir also goes for Jammu and Kashmir (Union Territory) and Ladakh. In particular, the infoboxes, will need to have in the Indian-administered pages the same characterization as they do in the Pakistani-administered pages. Already, I notice, that drive bys and IPs are wreaking havoc on the Indian-administered pages, attempting to promote the conceit that they are indisputably Indian pages. Please help in keeping Wikipedia NPOV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
In other words, the infobox on this page will need to say: "Region administered by India as a Union Territory." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I added those pages to my watchlist. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


We need to select three representative images for the infobox. I think:

  • Ladakh is mountain country; so we need an illustration of that.
  • Ladakh is a historical trading centre; so we need something that represents the trade.
  • Ladakh is historically Buddhist; so we need a historical Buddhist illustration.

Any other ideas? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

In my view, all this should probably wait until the question of images in subdivisions of Kashmir administered by the different countries is resolved. Pictures of history, geography, biodiversity, or people, are independent of administration, and belong either to the Kashmir page or to pages such as History of Gilgit-Baltistan, Geography of Ladakh, Wildlife of Ladakh, but not to pages about the administered regions. In the other Indian administered union territory, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), this has been followed, ceding its history ultimately to Kashmir. However, Ladakh, has not done that. In fact, the page is not even redirected to Ladakh (union territory), splitting the history, geography, etc to a page Ladakh (region) as proposed by @DeluxeVegan: on the Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) page. The problem of NPOV here is that the administrators will begin to take credit for content (such as wildlife etc) that is independent of and predates their administration. I will propose this on the Pakistan-administered pages as well. (I was hoping to take a vacation, but I have a sense that it will be a vacation only from creating new content. :) ) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
In other words, at least for a start, Ladakh should probably be redirected to a dab page, just as Jammu and Kashmir is being now, (or is proposed to being now). The likely candidates for pages there would be Ladakh (union territory), Jammu and Kashmir (state), and Kashmir. It will require more discussion of course in a wider forum. But since there seems to be a mood for seeing clarity and organization in the Kashmir-related pages right now, it is probably best to strike while the iron is hot. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
In fact, there would be no reason for Ladakh (region) or Gilgit-Baltistan (region) as their time-invariant content, such as pre-1947 history, geography, biodiversity, would either belong to specialized pages mentioned above, or in summary form in the Kashmir page which is identical to Kashmir region. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I really don't think we should be splitting Ladakh-related content across several articles in this manner. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the administrative unit largely coincides with the cultural and historical region, so they are best treated in the same article. I don't buy the argument that we'll somehow be crediting the culture and history to the administrative power – any article on a region will contain, as it should, content about the geography, history etc. – these are just facets of the topic. I don't think any of this content should be relegated to Kashmir – that article is too broad, and somewhat awkward in its scope the way it encompasses a motley of regions held together only by a 19th-century historical accident. As for the article on Ladakh, if at some point it accumulates so much content about the administrative set-up of the territory that a split becomes necessary, then that content could be moved into Ladakh (union territory), with the main article remaining about the whole topic. – Uanfala (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── A disputed region is a disputed region, regardless of how ad hoc or off-handed manner it was constituted, Most of the "history" in the Ladakh page is nonsense, a random collection of low-level sources (when sources are cited) without a single tertiary source (widely-used textbook for example) to ensure WP:DUE. The only reason why it exists is a red pen of RS and DUE has not been run through it. The geography (the Himalayas, the Karakoram, the soda plains) the biodiversity (the ibex, the snow leopard) is shared with a wider region in the Kashmir. These boundaries are not boundaries of biogeography but created in an even more ad hoc manner in 1947. The problem is not with Kashmir, but with the Kashmir article in Wikipedia which needs to be expanded. As I have said elsewhere, there are already parent articles History of Ladakh, Geography of Ladakh, Wildlife of Ladakh. There is no reason for the top-level summary to belong to the Kashmir article and be duplicated in the Ladakh article. Britannica, for example, keeps the pre-1947 history in its Kashmir page. If there were no disputes, it might have been another matter. Of course, it will need to be done across the board in all the first order sub-regions of Kashmir. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

PS See how small is the Britannica Ladakh page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
PPS The Geography of Ladakh is worse. It has one long lead, which has even more random meditation on the geography of the general Himalayan region, needless to say, without sources, and nothing else. The Ladakh#Geography section is mostly a copy and paste of the former. The Widlife of Ladakh is a list a long copy-and-paste list of birds! It has a section of mammals whose range cuts across a wider region. I think topics such as economy, tourism, wildlife conservation, belong to this article, but not long sections on history, geography, and biodiversity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)